Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/08/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Larkin, R. Keller, D. Rukow, K. Epstein 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: Introduced new Commission member Monica Ostby Mr. Conner: A St. Michael’s College class has been doing surveys at the polls. More than 500 people have been surveyed regarding South Burlington issues (e.g., energy, TIF, the Comprehensive Plan, etc.). Staff is excited about what will result from the surveys. At a recent City Council meeting, a member of the Vermont National Guard approached staff regarding a potential partnership to fix the Shamrock Rd./Ethan Allen Rd/Lime Kiln Road intersection. They have access to some funding the city does not have. Staff has been meeting with them. The new City Attorney, Andrew Bolduc, started yesterday. Committee staffing has been re-organized. Ms. LaRose will be staffing the Bike/Ped Committee and Maggie Leugers will be staffing the Natural Resources and Recreation and Parks Committee. 4. Planned Unit Development Project Phase II – establish work schedule, prepare for kick‐off: Mr. Conner said the Municipal Planning Grant application for this work has been submitted to the State. He suggested that a late December of early January meeting sounds right for the kick-off. The estimate from the consultants is that the work will be done at one meeting a month for about 8 months. The work would result in having 4 PUDs to go to public hearings. Ms. LaRose said they should know about the grant by the next meeting. 5. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of e-mails from the public who live in the area expressing concern with potential impacts. She also noted that due to the small Commission group at this meeting (other members are serving at the polls), no big decisions will be made. Feedback will be given to staff as to what information members would like for the next discussion. Mr. Conner noted that members had at previous meetings indicated that they had felt this use was not appropriate in the NRP district. Mr. Riehle asked what Village Residential development in that area would mean in terms of housing units. Mr. Conner said they could equate the number of square feel with housing and the cider facility or they could do a comparison based on traffic generation. There are also some “unknowns” that could have follow up, such as truck traffic. Mr. Gagnon suggested looking at it all based on infrastructure impacts (i.e., traffic, percentage and types of trucks, water, sewer, etc.). Ms. Louisos added that one thing they don’t always measure well is “paved area.” With residential use, you get a lot of pavement (e.g., driveways). The cider use might have more paving in one spot but not as spread out. Ms. Ostby raised the issue of noise and how much land might be needed as a buffer to residential use. Mr. Conner said there are city performance standards that have been used extensively. These include noise and lighting. Mr. Keller, said he is an engineer and understands the impact of this kind of facility on wastewater and water. He also cited the impact of a chiller on the neighborhood. He said all of this would depend on the type of equipment used. He also cited traffic issues on Van Sicklen and said it is especially challenging for bicyclists. He felt that Citizen is a good company. The question is the location. He added that events draw a large crowd at places like what is being proposed. Mr. Riehle asked about consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner suggested members look at this proposal through the lens of the Comprehensive Plan. There are some clear statements regarding the objectives for this part of the city (e.g., creating community, agriculture, etc.). He asked members to consider how those objectives could be met. Ms. LaRose directed attention to the last paragraph of staff notes which addresses “non‐starters.” She felt the sooner those are addressed, the sooner there can be a decision. Ms. Ostby suggested this could be the first type of PUD they tackle. Mr. Gagnon noted the Commission was split as to whether this should be a PUD. They had also identified other PUDs as higher priorities. Ms. Louisos suggested there may be other issues that are more important than whether this is a PUD or not. Mr. Gagnon questioned what features/criteria they would want to define: buffers, infrastructure, noise, odors, etc. He felt the criteria should fit into multiple areas. Mr. Riehle questioned whether the developer is willing to have the project go into the Village Residential district instead of the NRP. Mr. Conner said he shared that with the property owners and left it for them to think over. Mr. Larkin said that decision makes it complicated. He felt that if the Commission feels it doesn’t fit with the Comprehensive Plan, they should make that decision soon. He stressed that they are committed to making it work if it fits in the neighborho0od. The intent is not to create something troublesome for the neighbors. Mr. Conner suggested a chart of things the Commission would want to look at. The Commission would have to find the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan before sending it on to the City Council. The other alternative is to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby felt they shouldn’t change what the zoning anticipates. Mr. Conner said the word “planning” should be used instead of “zoning.” He noted there are some “complimentary” non‐residential uses allowed in residential areas. Ms. LaRose raised the issue of defining “value added agriculture” and determining whether it works with the proposed business plan. She felt that discussion should happen sooner rather than later. Mr. Riehle asked who addresses concerns such as noise and traffic. Mr. Conner said some of that can be gotten from national data. They could also reach out to some similar uses and get some case studies. Water and sewer can be addressed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Gagnon suggested looking at some local wineries that have “tastings.” They also have an agricultural component, manufacturing on the site, and special events. Bread & Butter Farm also has events. Mr. Keller suggested looking at Vermont Hard Cider in Middlebury. Ms. LaRose advised members to look back at the 9 August packet for some questions to consider. An audience member expressed concern with pesticides. Mr. Gagnon said he would be interested in knowing what types of pesticides are used. He noted that alar is now banned. Mr. Conner said staff has had a preliminary discussion with the Agency of Agriculture. Agriculture is exempt from local zoning, but it does have to meet standards of the Agency of Agriculture. This use would fall under their jurisdiction. Mr. Conner said he would get information from that Agency. 6. Review Draft Shelburne Road Basic Form Standards: Ms. LaRose said her recommendation would be for an overlay district. She felt such a district is great for corridors because they have shared characteristics. She was not yet ready, however, to call it the “Shelburne Road corridor.” She felt the standards should address corners as well as heights, setbacks, etc. She would recommend a more “urban form” for corners. She questioned whether members would want to create “nodes” in a corridor. She noted that members had said they didn’t want a “line of buildings.” Mr. Conner asked for feedback on the 35-foot height limit. He noted this often puts the DRB in an uncomfortable position. He suggested they could set a new maximum with a hard cap or have a number that the DRB could waive under specified conditions. Mr. Conner suggested the Commission could do some minor adjustments (e.g. doors facing the street, glazing) and then do more complex things later. Ms. Ostby expressed concern with increased heights blocking views. Mr. Conner said the Commission has been getting input regarding important scenic views. He noted there are places where there are no views unless you are up several floors high. He reminded members that the current standard is to protect views from a public right-of-way or a public park. Ms. Louisos felt an overlay district makes sense. Mr. Conner suggested a requirement for a minimum number of stories for a corner building. He also cited the need to create “places of identity” on Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner stressed the importance of giving the DRB the intent of whatever regulations the Commission decides upon. 7. Update on input to CCRPC on renewable energy siting maps, possible action on revised letter: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of feedback from Chris Shaw who felt they should be careful to consider the difference between solar and wind since there are some places where wind is not appropriate. Mr. Conner said the CCRPC has asked where in the Comprehensive Plan specific energy concerns are addressed. He directed attention to a chart created by staff where there are specific statements of policy and explained the nature of level 1 and level 2 constraints. a. The Comprehensive Plan speaks about endangered/rare species, but State language is stronger. Members felt they should go with the State language. b. The question arose as to whether wetland buffers should be a level 2 constraint. This was recommended by the Natural Resources Committee. Members felt that made sense. c. Natural Resources also recommended that steep slopes be a level 2 constraint. Members agreed. d. With regard to “agricultural soils,” Mr. Conner noted the State and Natural Resources Committee say they should be level 2. But Mr. Conner commented that “the devil is in the details.” 90% of South Burlington falls into the “agricultural soils” definition. This would make it impossible to meet state energy goals. He recommended saying “level 2, as it has been looked at before.” This is not language in the Comprehensive Plan, but this can be explained that it is not included because so much land is “agricultural soils.” Members were OK with that explanation. e. With regard to riparian connectivity, Mr. Conner noted “bubbles” in the Comprehensive Plan that are sometimes in conflict with where development is allowed. Member agreed this should be level 2. Ms. Ostby noted that as technology improves, less land could be requi4red for solar. She felt the regulations should be able to adapt to that potential. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the letter for submission as discussed. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Minutes of 25 October 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 25 October as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Other Business: There was no other business discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. Approved by the Planning Commission December 13, 2016 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: November 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:07 pm) 4. Planned Unit Development Project Phase II – establish work schedule, prepare for kick- off (7:15 pm) Enclosed is a copy of the work plan that the Commission looked at in late September as part of the Municipal Planning Grant application. At this meeting, we’d like to set the kick- off date with the Commission and have the Commission consider and approve, if appropriate, the general project schedule. 5. Continue discussion of potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant (7:25 pm) See enclosed memo. 6. Review draft Shelburne Road corridor basic form standards (8:25 pm) The Planning Commission on September 13th and October 11th continued a discussion related to some short-term adjustments of the City’s Land Development Regulations, specifically as they relate to Shelburne Road. Staff provided concepts related to building heights, setbacks, windows and doorways. Commissioners further raised concerns and shared additional thoughts about landscaping in the corridor. The feedback was valuable and staff has since started a working draft of potential regulatory language. This is attached. Staff comments on the draft can be found in black italicized text. We are working to refine the language, and may also have a map for the November 8th meeting which would show the potential geography of the overlay for this proposal. Furthermore, while not yet reflected in the working draft, we continue to examine potential updates to landscaping requirements to address a related concern raised by the Commission and should have that for review at an upcoming meeting. 2 7. Update on input to CCRPC on renewable energy siting maps, possible action on revised letter (8:45 pm) This past week, the input approved by the Planning Commission was submitted to the CCRPC. The Commission, and NRC and Energy Committees, are thanked for their work in looking at both the big picture and smaller items. The CCRPC has asked us to refine the comments for the shorter term as they prepare maps that they are required to submit to the Department of Public Service by next month. Specifically, we’ve been asked to narrow the focus of our input to recommendations for local constraints to be added for South Burlington based on present, or about-to-be-adopted City policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Regulations. In review the prior input, it contains several elements that extent beyond this scope. That input will be valuable as the CCRPC’s project moves into future phases of refinement and consideration at a regional scale. In the meantime, staff felt it valuable to have the Commission review a revised letter so that South Burlington is providing clear input on this first stage of the energy planning work. Staff will endeavor to prepare this letter for the Commission’s review by Tuesday morning. We’ll email it then and have copies available for public review at the meeting. Staff will use the prior submission as the foundation for the updated, tighter-focused letter for your consideration. 8. Meeting Minutes (8:58 pm) Meeting minutes of October 25th 9. Other Business (8:89 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:00 pm) South Burlington PUD Project:  Phase II Budget Estimate Draft: 9/23/2016 Proposed Scope of Work, Budget  Task Description 1 LDR Technical Review‐‐"Housekeeping" Amendments Work with staff to identify, review potential LDR housekeeping edits  Deliverable: Memo to PC 2 Outline:  Bylaw Amendments (Articles, Sections) Prepare working outline of PUD, Master Plan bylaw amendments under   LDRs (for selected types) Deliverable: Outline for Staff/PC Review 3 Initial Draft: PUD, FBC, Master Plan Bylaw Amendments  (Sections) Prepare draft bylaw language (by article, section) for selected PUD types,  FBC, master plans and illustrative graphics Deliverable:  Draft Bylaw Language, Graphics for PC consideration 4 Final Draft: PUD, FBC, Master Plan Bylaw Amendments/Graphics  Incorporate Staff/PC edits, following public presentation Prepare/edit graphics Deliverable: Hearing Draft of Final Bylaw Language, Graphics 5 PUD Guide [Optional, Recommended] Prepare Illustrated PUD Guide/Handbook outlining process, design  guidelines for selected types, associated graphics‐‐for DRB, developers 6 Project Coordination Project Meetings (staff, consultants; monthly): 12 PC Meetings/Work Sessions (monthly): 12 Developer, Property Owner meetings (arranged w/staff): 10 Public Presentation: Draft Bylaw Amendments  Planning Commission Hearing: Draft Bylaw Amendments Preliminary estimate,  for purposes of project budgeting; subject to further review, ne Front Porch Community Planning & Design ________________________________________________________________________ [Oct‐Dec] [Oct‐Jun] [May] [Oct] [Nov‐Apr] [Apr‐Jun] 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Zoning Use Discussion & Draft Work Plan DATE: November 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting At the Commission’s last meeting, several items related to a potential Agricultural Enterprise zoning use category were discussed. Below please find a brief summary of staff’s principal takeaways (for your confirmation or change), followed by staff’s recommendation for key questions to pursue next and a draft work plan for this project as requested. Principal Takeaways from Prior Discussions 1. The use being considered, Agricultural Enterprise, is a combination of manufacturing and value- added agriculture, leaning per the outside request towards manufacturing. 2. The Commission is willing to look at this potential use category as its own analysis (as opposed to looking at a Master Plan for the whole area, or to looking at the subject of agricultural from soup to nuts in the city) 3. The Commission does not wish to pursue zoning changes that would allow for Agricultural Enterprise Buildings or Support structures in the Natural Resources Protection District. 4. The Commission is willing to explore allowing Agricultural Enterprise buildings & support infrastructure in the Village Residential (VR) District, which presently allows residential development at a relatively high density. 5. Development in the VR would likely require the application / consumption of density (such as Transferable Development Rights, or TDRs). In other words, there would need to be translate TDRs, which represent one housing unit each, into non-residential development (square feet or something). The Commission has expressed that they would look at a use like this taking up some of the residential development potential of the property, not simply adding to the total development potential. 6. The Commission has requested staff prepare a work plan that would include an evaluation of impacts, consideration of alternatives, and public input into any potential changes in regulations. Staff recommends that the Commission review and affirm these takeaways as they represent some important decisions points for all parties. This week’s meeting 2 It’s staff’s assessment of this proposal that the Commission is interested in this potential zoning change for two main reasons: 1. The opportunity to foster a unique, community oriented business that supports the City’s goals to bring a greater sense of identity to the area while supporting high quality jobs; 2. The opportunity to support agriculture locally and across the region through a 21st Century model that recognizes land value in Chittenden County. Staff encourages the Commission to consider any zoning change through the lens of these (and other) goals as established by the Commission. This will help the Commission to evaluate whether a proposed definition and requirements under a new Agricultural Enterprise use category is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (and whether an amendment to the Plan would be triggered). Determine Important Elements Staff encourages the Commission to have a discussion of the next level of elements of a zoning change that would need to be included. At the last meeting, there was discussion of looking at Agricultural Enterprise as a “different type” of development on land that is presently zoned to allow for relatively high-density construction. 1. How much residential development potential must an Agricultural Enterprise use up? Staff urges the Commission to provide us with general guidance: An equivalent amount to the bulk of the development? A greater amount in recognition of additional impacts? 2. What role must agriculture play on the site and in region and how strong a link to the manufacturing part of the business is necessary? You’ve received feedback on your direction to staff from this past summer from an applicant interested in this discussion. 3. What level of variety in the definition of Agricultural Enterprise is acceptable? (eg, other uses from a cidery?) You’ve received feedback on your direction to staff from this past summer from an applicant interested in this discussion. Potential Work Plan Staff has prepared a first draft of a work plan per the Commission’s request. We’ll provide it to you at the meeting. Staff underscores the importance of looking at this in a manner that provides as much clarity to the community, the property owners, and potential developers as possible. In other words, there may be “non-starters” from any party on this project at any point along the way. Staff urges all parties to identify and make determinations on any non-starters as rapidly as possible. South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion November 8, 2016 Concept for Shelburne Road Basic Site / Bldg design features Consider as: Article 10 Overlay Districts. 10.06 Urban Design Overlay District Staff note: Inclusion as an overlay district not identified as specific to Shelburne Road permits future use elsewhere, should the Planning Commission later decide to pursue other geographies of the City where similar standards would be appropriate. It also allows for the standards to be applied across districts, and restrict depth to those properties with frontage on certain corridors, where zoning districts may otherwise be deeper. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. This section implements the community desires established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan desires that new development will occur in subject corridors. The corridors subject to the Urban Design Overlay District are encouraged within the Plan to use public transportation services, inspire pedestrian movement, and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. More specifically yet, the Plan advocates for the creation of one or more nodes of concentrated development and public activity in these areas. C. Applicability. This section shall be implemented in accordance with the geography(ies) shown on the Overlay Districts Map contained in these Regulations. Staff note: for now this shall include the entirety of properties fronting on Shelburne Road within the City. Kennedy Drive is included in the Comprehensive Plan as another area for increased urban form development, along with portions of Williston Road that are already addressed in the adopted Form Based Codes. (1) New construction. (2) Substantial Rehabs- Will reference rehab language from other sections to clarify threshold. D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the underlying dimensional standards, use, and other standards of the Zoning District shall still apply. (1) Entries. Subject properties must have at least one door facing the primary road in the corridor. Will adjust language here.This door shall: (a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations. (b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. This does not preclude additional principal entry doors; (c) Have a direct, separated walkway of at least 8 feet in width to the primary road. This may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian- oriented access. Concept for discussion South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion November 8, 2016 (2) Glazing (a) First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building; a minimum of 75% of this shall be transparent. (b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7.5 vertical feet. (c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet. (d) Glazing associated with operable doors shall count towards this requirement. (e) Garage doors may count if they are transparent. (3) Setbacks (a) At corners, minimum setback of 10 feet; maximum setback of 40 feet. (b) Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. New construction shall have a maximum setback of 50 feet. Staff would like to hold this as an item for further research and discussion. These setback thresholds are meant to stimulate discussion, but are not intended to reflect staff recommendations at this time. (4) Height (a) At corners, minimum 2 stories of height, maximum 4 stories. (b) Maximum 3 stories height elsewhere. (c) No building shall be more than 3 stories taller than an adjacent building on the same side of the street within 100 feet. (d) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than shortest R4 building on adjacent property. Increases by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum. (e) Maximum building heights remain restricted by important public scenic views. Language to be consistent with what is already included in the LDRS in relation to height waivers. Re-defining this may be a task for another project in the future, as it is widely reported by the Development Review Board, applicants, and residents. Staff note: Below is an optional add on for future times. We share this here to inform the big-picture planning for the area. However, given the stated intention of having something ready to adopt in the short term in order to address current trends, the adoption of nodes would be a more time-consuming, thought and participation heavy component. E. Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is required and permitted. (1) Except as noted herein, nodes shall adhere to standards in 8.13 B, C, F & G. Concept for discussion South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion November 8, 2016 (a) Minimum building setbacks of 10 feet. Maximum setbacks of 50 feet. (b) Minimum building height of 2 stories. Maximum height of 5 stories. Concept for discussion SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 25 OCTOBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 October 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Cummings, Energy Committee; M. Cuke, B. Milizia, Natural Resources Committee; T. Barritt; S. Dopp, M. Hair 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle: He and his wife went door to door in support of the ballot item. He noted that a former City Councilor Paul Engels has been putting up signs opposing the ballot item. Also questioned the new security measures at City Hall. Anyone not a daily member of City Hall is treated as a “guest.” He noted that even with these measures, the City Council and other committee meetings are not “secure.” Mr. Conner said there is an attempt to balance “openness” and “security.” Mr. Conner: There will be a press conference Thursday at 2 p.m. regarding the TIF vote. Las week, there was a great press conference at the city Landfill following the Public Service Board’s approval of the solar array to be placed on top of the Landfill. It will save the city considerable over the coming years. There was no city outlay for this. Staff has met with a class at St. Michael’s College taught by Vince Bolduc. They will be doing an Election Day survey. Andrew Bolduc has been hired as the new City Attorney. He begins on 7 November. He grew up in South Burlington 4. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: 2 Mr. Conner reviewed the three potential paths for the Planning Commission to go down in discussion this issue. To start, he suggested the Commission address the question of whether and how any zoning change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner showed the area in question on the Future Land Use Map and noted that the property lines up pretty closely with the zoning district. The question then arises as to whether Citizen Cider’s use falls in the “agriculture spectrum.” Mr. Conner presented a chart of that spectrum ranging from farmland that would sell products raised off-site to the “burger nights” use to a vineyard with “tasting” events, to a Jasper Hill type of use, to the Ben & Jerry’s establishment in Waterbury. Members felt the Cider use would fall between Jasper Hill and Ben & Jerry’s or between the vineyard and Ben & Jerry’s. #1 – the Van Sicklen Node: This would involve preparing a Master Plan for the area. If that plan were to change where development could occur, that could require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. There would have to be changes to the LDRs. Mr. Conner estimated the process under this scenario would take 12-18 months to do. The “pros” of this approach would be that it is comprehensive and addresses multiple issues. The “cons” are that it would take longer and cost more. #2 – Agriculture Enterprise Use: This would involve specifically developing an Ag-Enterprise Use. This could involve a change in the Future Land Use Map and possibly changes to the Comprehensive plan depending on where and how such a use would be allowed. It could take 4-10 months and involve zoning elements and a possible tie into the PUD project. The “pros” of this approach are that it is faster and more focused. The “con” is that it is a narrower approach. #3 – Agriculture “soup to nuts”: Would involve examining all forms of value-added agriculture and where they fit into the City. It would take 10-12 months. The “pros” of this approach are that it is a 360-degree approach and it slots agriculture more purposefully than path 2. The “cons” are that it takes longer and is a big project. 3 Mr. Conner suggested that the Commission could move districts around and could allow something like this use in a Village Residential area. Mr. Gagnon liked the idea of a PUD which can apply to different areas. The Commission could set certain criteria that it wanted to see. The use could then go wherever it fits. Mr. Gagnon asked what criterial were used to define the Natural Resource Protection areas. He felt that some areas make a lot of sense, but the piece in question is totally surrounded by developable areas. Mr. Conner said that when the visioning took place, they looked at wildlife areas (he showed a map of this) and viable on-going agriculture options. “Planned open space” was then brought in followed by placing residential areas where it was felt they made sense. Mr. Gagnon said if it is an area the community agreed should be set aside, that is a high priority. If it is an area for agriculture, perhaps agriculture plus a little industry (in a PUD) could be a good choice. Mr. Klugo noted that the Citizen Cider people said they have a 7-month time-frame, and only option #2 fits that timeline. He felt a public process should happen sooner rather than later and thought that could involve additional meetings until the work is done. Mr. Gagnon supported additional meetings. He liked the PUD idea and wanted it to be adaptable to other places in the city. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Riehle felt the Commission could get other requests and have to go through this process again. Mr. Klugo noted that traditionally planning happens when someone comes up with an idea. He felt the Commission can take what it likes from a project and include those aspects in other projects. Ms. Louisos asked there can be a zoning category with design criteria. Mr. Conner said there can. An audience member asked the Commission to consider what happens if something is replicated a number of times. Mr. Barritt questioned the possibility of people “hiding” behind agriculture use to avoid taxes. He noted the city does want to increase the tax base. He also questioned a marijuana growing use possibility. Mr. Klugo said he would be more comfortable with options #1 and #3 because they have a broader look. But he noted the issue of time frame. Mr. Conner noted that a timeframe reflects how broadly the Commission is looking at an issue. Ms. Louisos didn’t feel it would be too difficult to define each type of agricultural enterprise. Mr. Conner said that could depend on how you start out. Ms. Louisos noted they did talk to Paul Dreher about this, but nothing ever became of that discussion. 4 Mr. Hair asked how the Commission would look at the impact on the three surrounding residential communities. He was concerned with traffic, home values, pesticide use, etc. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission does look at those things. She also noted that as the zoning now stands, a lot of houses could be built on that property and could have the same impact on traffic, pesticide use, etc. Mr. Klugo said there could be less control of traffic as well with a residential use. Mr. Barritt asked if there are areas where this use could now be allowed. Mr. Conner said there are. Ms. Louisos added that Citizen has said they have a vision of being in a more agricultural area where they can expand the trees, etc. Mr. Conner asked which path members felt they want to go down. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald favored an agricultural PUD. Mr. Klugo favored option #1 but said he would support #2 if that was the choice. Mr. Riehle leaned toward Master Planning. Mr. Klugo said PUDs only work when you have a Master Plan of what a “node” is going to be. He feared they would end up with a bunch of pieces that don’t go together. Mr. Gagnon said he was not hung up on the words PUD; he wanted to come up with criteria that are transferable. Ms. Louisos asked if the Commission should possibly talk to Citizen about their timeline. Mr. Gagnon said he felt they should define what the Commission wants, not try to tailor something to a specific industry/developer. There should be a reasonable set of criteria, and if it fits that developer, OK. If not, it’s OK too. Mr. Klugo noted that this discussion wouldn’t be happening without the Citizen proposal. Mr. Conner questioned whether the NRP designation is “in play” with this discussion. Three members felt that designation should remain or there should be a land swap creating NRP land elsewhere in the city. Mr. Klugo didn’t see that as a discussion item now. He added that if it is a discussion item, that’s a full year’s timeframe. He cited the need to impress Citizen with the time element. 5. Review Recommendations from Energy Committee and natural Resources Committee on Draft Siting Maps; Consider Feedback to CCRPC: Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that the Regional Planning Commission is mapping areas deemed appropriate or not appropriate for energy siting. Mr. Cummings felt that some guidance should be given to CCRPC regarding what areas are appropriate as well as those that are not. Areas that would not be appropriate include wetlands, NRP zoned areas, primary conservation areas, habitat areas. Mr. Conner said staff and the Planning Commission will have the responsibility of honing down what CCRPC comes up with. He stressed that the city will have to identify a sufficient amount of space to meet the State goals. 5 The question of rooftop solar was raised. Mr. Cummings noted that ¾ of the roofs in the city are not usable because of age. Mr. Klugo added that he is amazed at the number of homes in new developments that are not properly oriented for solar. Mr. Conner noted there can also be the issue of trees in front of buildings that would have to be chopped down to allow for solar. A member of the audience asked about the possibility of buffers so that Vermont’s beauty can be maintained as much as possible. The possibility of “nicer looking” panels was also mentioned. Mr. Cummings also stressed the need “to take ownership” of electric use. Members agreed to have Mr. Conner and staff put together a letter to CCRPC and to share it with several Commission members. Mr. Gagnon then moved to authorize Mr. Conner to write a letter to CCRPC and share it with one or more members of the Commission. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consider Letter Regarding Upcoming Incremental Finance District Vote: Ms. Louisos noted that The Other Paper required the letter to be signed only by her as an individual. The deadline for the upcoming issue was last Thursday, and she submitted the letter in time for that deadline. Members suggested individually putting entries of support on Front Porch Forum. Mr. MacDonald also volunteered to represent the Commission at the information meeting on Wednesday evening. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the letter written by Ms. Louisos and to have Mr. MacDonald read that letter at the public information meeting on 26 October. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the City of Burlington is now allowing single family homes that had been converted to multi-tenant use to go back to single family residences. 8. Minutes of 11 October 2016: It was noted that on p. 3, third full paragraph, it was Ms. Ostby who was quoted, not Mr. Larkin. Mr. Klugo also noted that at the top of p. 5, what he had specifically said was “so that our time is not cast aside if something better comes down the road.” 6 Mr. Riehle moved to approve the minutes of 11 October 2016 as amended. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:35 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk